Grilled Cheese

ExploreLog inSign up
Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyCommunity StandardsHelpGet the app

Grilled Cheese is a product of Village Compute

Version devBuilt at: 2026-10-11 02:37:10 EDT

Explore

PostsPeople
LatestRanked
Load more
@umichlaw.bsky.socialOct 10, 2026, 2:31 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

From Relic to Relevance, The Resurgence of Tariffs

by Professor Reuven S. Avi-Yonah et al.

repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law...

@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialOct 10, 2026, 8:45 AM

Saturday #morningread
#10/10portal
Have a lovely weekend! 🍁🦊

Emily Dickinson’s ‘The Wind’

@umichlaw.bsky.socialOct 9, 2026, 2:12 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

“Rethinking the Fund Termination Sanction.”

by Professor @sbagen.bsky.social

scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcont...

INTRODUCTION Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 is often referred to as the “sleeping giant” of civil rights law.2 It is a “giant” because it prohibits any form of race discrimination engaged in by any recipient of federal financial assistance,3 and because the remedy set forth in the statute for a violation is the termination of federal funds.4 And it is “sleeping” because, except for a brief moment during the desegregation era, the federal government had never seriously attempted to terminate a recipient’s federal grants for a violation of the statute.5 Nor had the
@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialOct 9, 2026, 7:29 AM

Friday #morningread
Laurie Lee’s ‘Field of Autumn’

@umichlaw.bsky.socialOct 8, 2026, 3:31 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

Noneconomic Tort Damages and Biased Beliefs About Vulnerability to Harm

by Professor @rosesomm.bsky.social

via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/v...

Abstract The American tort system aspires to provide fair compensation to injured plaintiffs, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, religion, or gender. Recent experimental evidence from psychology suggests, however, that factfinders consistently judge identical harms as less severe when experienced by individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES). People presume, for instance, that a paper cut hurts a wealthy person more than a less well-off person, that domestic violence inflicts greater suffering on a high-SES woman than a lower-SES woman, and that bullying harms a fiveyear- old from a high-SES family more severely than one from a low- SES family. This Essay examines how this “thick skin bias” threatens to undermine the compensatory function of tort law, particularly for plaintiffs who are already socioeconomically disadvantaged. While scholars have long lamented that pecuniary damages can perpetuate existing economic inequality by compensating highearning and high-asset plaintiffs more generously than their less well-off peers, comparatively little attention has been paid to how nonpecuniary damages might be distorted by psychological biases affecting perceptions of suffering experienced by people of different socioeconomic strata. The psychological phenomena explored here are particularly troubling because they operate in direct opposition to both legal principles and empirical reality. Tort law requires that noneconomic damages be assessed based on the individual circumstances of each plaintiff. Meanwhile, research suggests that, if anything, economic disadvantage exacerbates rather than diminishes the suffering caused by identical injuries, as low-income individuals often lack resources that facilitate recovery. This Essay identifies avenues for future research that might eventually inform legal reforms designed to combat the thick skin bias.
@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialOct 8, 2026, 7:15 AM

Thursday #morningread
Julia Wallis’s ‘Watchers in the Woods’

@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialOct 6, 2026, 7:23 AM

Tuesday #morningread
George MacDonald’s ‘Autumn’s Gold’

@umichlaw.bsky.socialOct 5, 2026, 12:05 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

The Collision of State Climate Tort Suits with Federal Deregulation

by Professor @profrrothschild.bsky.social in @yalelawjournal.bsky.social

yalelawjournal.org/essay/the-co...

@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialOct 5, 2026, 9:07 AM

Monday #morningread
Robert Louis Stevenson’s ‘Autumn Fires’ 🍁

@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialOct 3, 2026, 7:45 AM

Saturday #morningread

Christina Rossetti’s ‘October’, from The Months: A Pageant

@umichlaw.bsky.socialOct 2, 2026, 1:23 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

The Institutions of Exceptions: Justification in Trade and Investment Treaties

By Professor @aratojulian.bsky.social in the Michigan Journal of International Law

repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol47/i...

Abstract International economic law binds states in the interest of liberalizing markets, including in cross-border trade in goods and services (trade) and capital (investment). The treaty regimes for both trade and investment do this by disciplining states through legal rules, while preserving a modicum of governmental authority over domestic policy. The preservation of policy space in these regimes usually involves a process of exceptions-based justification – through formal exceptions clauses in most trade treaties and some investment agreements, and also through informal exceptions-style reasoning by adjudicators in the investment treaty regime more generally. This “exceptions paradigm” of justification has worked well in the trade regime, especially in the WTO where it has been key to securing a justifiable and legitimate balance between market disciplines and regulatory autonomy. But ex post justification has been less successful at striking a tolerable balance in the investment regime, even when formally codified in an exceptions clause. This article seeks to explain why that is, by focusing on the institutions within which exceptionsbased justification is embedded. Key institutional differences between these regimes help explain the varied success of the exceptions paradigm in trade and investment, in particular: the right of action (private vs public); the degree of judicial centralization (ad hoc arbitration vs court system); and the available remedies (retrospective compensation vs prospective injunctive relief). I argue that it is trade law’s public-oriented institutions that have made the exceptions clause workable – not the other way around. By contrast, investment law’s private-oriented institutions make that system particularly inhospitable to exceptions-style justification.
@umichlaw.bsky.socialOct 1, 2026, 2:56 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

The Future of Environmental Law Amid the Destruction of Science

by Professor @profrrothschild.bsky.social on @ssrn.bsky.social

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Essay in the Harvard Environmental Law Review's Symposium Issue on the Future of Environmental Law One Year into Trump; responding to Richard Revesz's Inverted Positions: The Trump Administration’s Concerted Effort To End the Use of Regulatory Benefit-Cost Analysis.
@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialOct 1, 2026, 8:14 AM

Thursday #morningread
White rabbit 🐇 Have a lovely October!

Alfred Austin’s ‘October’

@umichlaw.bsky.socialSep 30, 2026, 1:03 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

Contemporary Issues in Black Philosophy: Pluralism in Methodological Approaches

by Professor Daniel Fryer et al.

scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/apq/arti...

@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialSep 30, 2026, 7:34 AM

Wednesday #morningread
John Clare’s ‘Autumn Birds’
✨🎈🦉

@umichlaw.bsky.socialSep 29, 2026, 1:23 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

Amicus brief by Professor Alexandra Klass, et al., which was cited by United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in State of Michigan v. United States Department of Energy.

statepowerproject.org/wp-content/u...

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED Case No. 25-1159 (consolidated with 25-1160 and 25-1162) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., Respondents. MIDCONTINENT INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC., Intervenor-Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Final Order of the Department of Energy BRIEF OF ENERGY LAW SCHOLARS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS Jonas Monast James P. Duffy Alexandra L. St. Romain CENTER FOR APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY 712 H Street NE, Suite 90006 Washington, DC 20002 (802) 233-7967 jay.duffy@caelp.org Counsel for Energy Law Scholars Amici Cu
@umichlaw.bsky.socialSep 28, 2026, 1:49 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

Professor @leahlitman.bsky.social in @jotwell.bsky.social

“Lady Whistledown…and the Legal Academy?”

legalpro.jotwell.com/lady-whistle...

@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialSep 28, 2026, 6:21 AM

Monday #morningread
John Clare’s ‘Nutting’

@umichlaw.bsky.socialSep 27, 2026, 1:35 PM

Michigan Law #MorningRead

"Uncorrected."

By Professor @nicholson.bsky.social and Janet Freilich in the Boston University Law Review.

www.bu.edu/bulawreview/...

In addition to making rules and deciding outcomes, the legal system generates, curates, and shares information. When the system gets rules and outcomes wrong, it is obviously a problem, and much effort (and scholarly attention) goes into identifying those mistakes and fixing them. But the system also gets information wrong, a problem mostly overlooked by policymakers and scholars. Those information mistakes matter too—they are prevalent and harmful. We show here that even when the mistakes are widely known and the errors broadly acknowledged, the information very often goes uncorrected. As a result, people make decisions based on bad information from a system that should be trustworthy and authoritative: builders build houses in mislabeled floodplains, patients use medical devices that are not really safe and effective, background checks disqualify potential employees based on crimes they did not commit, and inventors rely on falsified data in patent disclosures, to name a few. Why are so many legal information mistakes uncorrected? We identify multiple reasons, including lack of support for public correction mechanisms, lack of robust private mechanisms, challenges in communication between institutions, and an overreliance on self-interest. An underlying problem, though, is that information mistakes just are not given enough focus as the major trans-substantive problem they are. That is its own mistake, because in a world where an increasing number of decisions incorporate an increasing amount of information, mistakes in that information matter more and more. Thankfully, technology makes that task somewhat easier, as does increased attention toward improving incentives and allocating responsibility. It is worth tackling the
@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.socialSep 27, 2026, 8:51 AM

Sunday #morningread
A. E. Houseman’s ‘Tell me not here, it needs not saying’